- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against a revisional order dated 22.7.1999 by which the revisional Court has set aside the decree of the Trial Court/dismissing the landlord's suit for arrears of rent and eviction and has remanded the case for trial afresh. The facts in brief are that Pritam Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents was the owner and landlord of the disputed shop wherein the petitioner was a tenant @ Rs. 300/- per month. He by a notice dated 3rd of September 1992 demanded arrears of rent from September 1991 but the petitioner deposited the rent under section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in proceedings which were registered as Case No. 4/70 of 1992. After his death, the present respondents vide notice dated 13.3.1995 served on the petitioner tenant on 15.3.1995 again demanded rent from September 1992 and terminated his vacancy and since the amounts were not paid, SCC Suit No. 4 of 1995 was filed for arrears of rent and eviction.
(2.) After the parties led their evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on 28.10.1995 holding that since the rent was deposited in the Court, the plaintiffs were at liberty to withdraw it and therefore, the tenant was not a defaulter. It also went on to hold that violation of the provisions of Rules 21(3) and (5) of the Rules framed under the Act was only an irregularity. On appeal the revisional Court, after relying upon various judgments of this Court has held that deposit under section 30 was in violation of Rules 21(3) and (5) which was a mandatory clause and therefore, it would be invalid deposit. It further found that even after the death of Pritam Singh, the tenant continued to deposit rent under section 30 in his name, though deposit in the name of a dead person being void, on this ground also the deposit was invalid. It further found that despite the notice the tenant never tendered rent to the landlord nor paid it on the date of first hearing and therefore, he was not entitled to the protection of section 20(4). After recording all these findings, it set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the suit for decision afresh.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error of law except for urging that in view of the decision rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Devi v. District Judge, Mirzapur, 1983 9 AllLR 347the deposit even in the name of a dead person would be valid in view of section 7C(6) of the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947.;